- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 02:21:43 -0400
- To: public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
I'm thinking there might be a possibility that the WG would pushback on normative text changes, but not informative, yet also the editor will be unwilling to cite a TAG unresolved issue in the spec. Here's a compromise that uses 'informative text' only to make David's point about ambiguity and 'passing the entire representation, not just the nodeset which may be ambiguous' to the GRDDL transform. Like all compromises, I'm sure it will leave everyone unhappy, but it at least flags the issues brought up First, after this sentence in the Spec: "Therefore, it is suggested that GRDDL transformations be written so that they perform all expected pre-processing, including processing of related DTDs, Schemas and namespaces. ", it logically follows (since one cannot perform all expected pre-processing if one is given, as David Booth pointed out, just a nodeset as input to the transform), add that following sentence: "In the case where a GRDDL transform specifies all expected pre-processing, then the GRDDL transformation language can/should be given as input the representation of the GRDDL source document, not the node-set derived by the GRDDL-aware agent." -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 06:21:47 UTC